Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38405 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1320 Year-2015 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR Son of Ramadhar Singh Resident of Village - Bihat Tola Makshashpur, P.S. - Barauni, District - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Sulekha Devi Wife of Amit Kumar F/o- Chandrashekhar Singh, Resident of Village - Bihat Tola Makshashpur, P.S. - Barauni, District - Begusarai. At present Vill.- Madhurapur Bichla Tola, P.S.- Teghra, Dist.- Begusarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1320©/2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 195(A), 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P.Act.

Case is under Section 498(A) of the IPC with an allegation of demand of Rs.02 lac and torture and for nonfulfillment of the same, torturing her. It further appears that the petitioner was earlier granted provisnal bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.6.2019 and later on the matter was referred to the Meditation Centre but from the report of the mediation kept at flag 'M' it appears that the mediation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38405 of 2019(4) dt.18-10-2019 2/2 has failed.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is ready to keep the children but not ready to keep the complainant as he apprehends danger from the complainant though he has submitted that marriage was solemnized 15 years ago.

Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner is intentionally not ready to keep her and that supports the allegation of the O.P.no.2 .

Having heard both sides and considering the above facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as such this application is dismissed and the provisional bail earlier granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 27.6.2019, is withdrawn .

Let a copy of the order be sent to the court concerned at once for the needful.

With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T